"They" have said that since we 'lost' we had our right to secede invalidated. Yankee Reconstructionist to the best of my knowledge never pressed this law through. This is one of those implied things. RIGHT. Either we originally could secede outright, per our contract of 1845 with Tyler, or we can divide into 5 states. If we secede, we could become the sixth largest economy in the world. I would also hope we could acquire the resources of the Yankees, i.e. Ft. Hood, White sands, Carswell AFB, Randolph, Kelly, Alice Naval Air Station, Ellington, and all of the reserve Units in the state. There are several other bases as well of a lot of places that have been shut down, by the congress in DC. BTW, since this is a Virginia list, did anyone ever complain you all were not paid adequate compensation for the land as well that is DC in Virginia, as the Lee's not being paid, under eminent domain, for their Arlington Plantation? I have always said that the $10,000,000 we received was not enough and based upon FIDC contract negotiations after 1986 we needed three appraisals, the contract form was not an approved US government approved form, and we did not have an adequate bid procedure to determine adequate value. WE would be glad to talk, but you have to take Rick Perry and several of the other politicians that are obviously Yankee carpetbagger progeny. John Philip Adams Texas [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clara Callahan Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:01 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Secession and the Constitution Doesn't Texas maintain her right to secede in her constitution? Where's the Texan in this group? David Kiracofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I remember reading this essay some time ago and agree with Kevin that the question of perpetual union was not a settled one in 1861. Looking at everything from the Dopctinres of 1798 to the New England Federalists in the 1805-1814 period to the Nullifiers in 1832 and the Massachusetts "personal liberty laws" in the 1850s makes it clear that Lincoln's notion that the states were truly subsumed into one whole was not a universally held one. I always thought it was a telling choice on the part of the founders to depart from the assertion made in the Articles of Confederation which aimed at a "perpetual union" -- the founders were content to aspire merely to a "more perfect union." Lincoln's assertion strikes me as one of his great pieces of political innovation on a par with the new formulations in the Gettysburg Address. Of course in the end, Lincoln and his armies settled the matter of secession with military victory (and then there was a legal decision in, I think ,1867 that finally removed the legal possibility of secession.) The essay is "The Concept of a Perpetual Union," by Kenneth M. Stampp, published in The Journal of American History, Vol. 65, No. 1. (Jun., 1978), pp. 5-33. It is available readily via JSTOR, or in any good academic library. David Kiracofe History Tidewater Community College Chesapeake Campus 1428 Cedar Road Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 757-822-5136 To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html